If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. Scientific research theorizes that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when water vapor first liquefied, and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sedimentsand molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.

Until the early 19th century people frequently believed in spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter.

Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain, maggots spontaneously appear in meat, or moderlieschens and eels are produced by mud in ephemeral ponds.

According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth.

In the 17th century such assumptions started to be questioned; such as that by Sir Thomas Browne in his Pseudodoxia Epidemica, subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths, of 1646, an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." His conclusions were not widely accepted, e.g. his contemporary, Alexander Ross wrote:

"To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants".

In 1546 the physician Girolamo Fracastoro theorized that epidemic diseases were caused by tiny, invisible particles or "spores", which might not be living creatures, but this was not widely accepted.

Next, Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism in 1665. He is also credited for naming the cell which he discovered while observing cork samples.

Then in 1676 Anthony van Leeuwenhoek discovered microorganisms that, based on his drawings and descriptions are thought to have been protozoa and bacteria. This sparked a renewal in interest in the microscopic world.

The first step was taken by the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs.

From the 17th century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be omne vivum ex ovo: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (literally, everything from an egg).

In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling.

Yet it was not until 1861 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear in nutrient rich media of their own accord in non-living material, and which supported cell theory.

By the middle of the 19th century Pasteur and other scientists discovered the theory of Biogenesis by demonstrating that living organisms do not arise spontaneously from non-living matter.

No real progress was made until 1924 when Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin reasoned that atmospheric oxygen prevented the synthesis of the organic molecules that are the necessary building blocks for the evolution of life. In his The Origin of Life,Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere through the action of sunlight.

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

The origin of the basic biomolecules, while not settled, is less controversial than the significance and order of steps 2 and 3. The basic chemicals from which life is thought to have formed are:

Recently estimates of these sources suggest that the heavy bombardment before 3.5 Gyr ago within the early atmosphere made available quantities of organics comparable to those produced by other energy source.

In 1953 a graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed on early Earth from inorganic precursors. The now-famous “Miller-Urey experiment” used a highly reduced mixture of gases – methane, ammonia and hydrogen – to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.

In 1953 a graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed on early Earth from inorganic precursors. The now-famous “Miller-Urey experiment” used a highly reduced mixture of gases – methane, ammonia and hydrogen – to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.

ClassicbutQuestionable

Stanley Miller’s experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth’s primordial atmosphere was "reducing." That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why?

TheMysteryofLife’sOrigin:ReassessingCurrentTheories points out that if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.’ How solid was Miller’s presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere?
In a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: "These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found."—JournaloftheAmericanChemicalSociety, May 12, 1955.
Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: "Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it."—TechnologyReview, April 1981.

And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in ScientificAmerican: "Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life."
Why, then, do many still hold that earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen? In MolecularEvolutionandtheOriginofLife, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, "laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution . . . would be largely inhibited by oxygen" and because compounds such as amino acids "are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen."

Is this not circular reasoning? The early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. But there actually is no assurance that it was reducing.

There is another telling detail: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

I will admit there are some unresolved issues with Abiogenisis...however, it is a work in progress and is constantly being updated and re-formulated as new data arrives...as well with the aforementioned experiment..the conditions of the earth at the time..make it rather difficult to perform an actual live experiment..after all...the planet is a much bigger laboratory.

Abiogenisis...within about 60 years...at most..will have all the answers we need as to the origin of human life.

Yo, Lyfe, where's your answer to his other arguments? He argued about how the bible is clearly the product of men, and he proved it pretty well. Why don't you prove those arguments wrong?

His arguments against the bible are flawed due to human philosphy. Human philosophy will always get beat by the bible, because it's God's wisdom vs man's.

As a believer in the bible, I don't sit around and say scientists have not found fossils. But Evolutionists will say prophetic word has not happened, even though history has proven it indeed has. Some in this thread have said you have to twist and turn to understand prophetic word. And that is simply not always applicable.

Evidencesofinspiration

It isfilledwithpropheciesreflectingdetailedknowledgeofthefuture—somethingimpossibleforhumans

2 Pet. 1:20, 21: "No prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit."

▪ Prophecy: Isa. 44:24, 27, 28; 45:1-4: "Jehovah . . . the One saying to the watery deep, ‘Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up’; the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in my saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’ This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut: ‘Before you I myself shall go, and the swells of land I shall straighten out. The copper doors I shall break in pieces, and the iron bars I shall cut down. . . . For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I even proceeded to call you by your name.’" (Writing by Isaiah was completed by about 732 B.C.E.)

□ Fulfillment: Cyrus had not been born when the prophecy was written. The Jews were not taken into exile to Babylon until 617-607 B.C.E., and Jerusalem and its temple were not destroyed until 607 B.C.E. In detail the prophecy was fulfilled starting in 539 B.C.E. Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates River into an artificial lake, the river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city, and Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. Thereafter, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild Jehovah’s temple there.—TheEncyclopediaAmericana (1956), Vol. III, p. 9; LightFromtheAncientPast (Princeton, 1959), Jack Finegan, pp. 227-229; "AllScriptureIsInspiredofGodandBeneficial" (New York, 1983), pp. 282, 284, 295.

▪ Prophecy: Jer. 49:17, 18: "‘Edom must become an object of astonishment. Everyone passing along by her will stare in astonishment and whistle on account of all her plagues. Just as in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and her neighbor towns,’ Jehovah has said, ‘no man will dwell there.’" (Jeremiah’s recording of prophecies was completed by 580 B.C.E.)

□ Fulfillment: "They [the Edomites] were driven from Palestine in the 2nd century B.C. by Judas Maccab&#230;us, and in 109 B.C. John Hyrcanus, Maccab&#230;an leader, extended the kingdom of Judah to include the w. part of Edomitic lands. In the 1st century B.C. Roman expansion swept away the last vestige of Edomitic independence . . . After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. . . . the name Idum&#230;a [Edom] disappeared from history." (TheNewFunk&WagnallsEncyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 11, p. 4114) Notice that the fulfillment extends down to our day. In no way can it be argued that this prophecy was written after the events had taken place.

▪ Prophecy: Luke 19:41-44; 21:20, 21: "He [Jesus Christ] viewed the city [Jerusalem] and wept over it, saying: . . . ‘The days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.’" Two days later, he counseled his disciples: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw." (Prophecy spoken by Jesus Christ in 33 C.E.)

□ Fulfillment: Jerusalem revolted against Rome, and in 66 C.E. the Roman army under Cestius Gallus attacked the city. But, as Jewish historian Josephus reports, the Roman commander "suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City." (Josephus,theJewishWar, Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 167) This provided opportunity for Christians to flee from the city, which they did, moving to Pella, beyond the Jordan, according to Eusebius Pamphilus in his EcclesiasticalHistory. (Translated by C. F. Crus&#233;, London, 1894, p. 75) Then around Passover time of the year 70 C.E. General Titus besieged the city, an encircling fence 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long was erected in just three days, and after five months Jerusalem fell. "Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins. Archaeological work shows us today just how effective was the destruction of Jewish buildings all over the land."—TheBibleandArchaeology (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1962), J. A. Thompson, p. 299.

So we have biblical prophecy being stated on one hand, and secular history proving it true on the other. How could these many different writers do this and be this exact?

On the other hand, I am told I'd be better off if I believed this instead.

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4RealzIn 1953 a graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed on early Earth from inorganic precursors. The now-famous “Miller-Urey experiment” used a highly reduced mixture of gases – methane, ammonia and hydrogen – to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.

But when I reply with the issues of this study, and just how fruitless the endeavor has really been for science, this is the reply you get.

"I will admit there are some unresolved issues with Abiogenisis...however, it is a work in progress and is constantly being updated and re-formulated as new data arrives...as well with the aforementioned experiment..the conditions of the earth at the time..make it rather difficult to perform an actual live experiment..after all...the planet is a much bigger laboratory.

Abiogenisis...within about 60 years...at most..will have all the answers we need as to the origin of human life.

STILL BEATS THE FAIRY TALE BOOKS." - Knicksfan4realz

Now when he wants to disprove Jehovah's witnesses, he'll go to great lengths to say they have been wrong, and false this and that, but it is ok to cling to false hope when it comes to science, because in 60 years (likely when we're all dead) it will be figured out.

The bible was not wrong, our understanding of it needed to be adjusted on certain viewpoints, and instances of this had already occured biblically. But it's not ok for imperfect humans to misinterpet the bible, but it's perfectly fine for science to miss the mark. We'll figure it out in 60 years or so.

It's also quite telling he thinks the bible is a fairytale. Even though the prophecies in it concern real people like all who view this thread, and actual documented world history.fairytale:An interesting but highly implausible story; A story about a mythical being of folklore and romance usually having diminutive human form and magic powers.

Now, if we're all being objective here, which of these can qualify most as a FairytaleA)Originally Posted by KnicksFan4RealzIn 1953 a graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed on early Earth from inorganic precursors. The now-famous “Miller-Urey experiment” used a highly reduced mixture of gases – methane, ammonia and hydrogen – to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.

B) any of the prophecies mentioned above that secular history has supported as occuring? Honest?

Also, anyone care to comment on this interesting point about Stanley Miller's experiment?

If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or WHOdoes the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

The case is not closed: your "God" was unable to defeat metal chariots. Success required human charity, without which your "God's" original failure would have stood. Explain that or simply give up.

Jehovah has done many astonishing things that history proves has happened. Things that have no logical explanation at times, but none the less have happened.

If you really think that metal chariots could stop Jehovah from succeeding, so be it. Keep in mind though, the context shows that his purpose was ultimately accomplished. And really, that is all Jehovah ever does. Accomplish his purposes.

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

As for Michael/Jesus, your citations are a stretch. As a former Christian, I know the scriptures of the NT, in particular, very well. The scripture says that Jesus will come with an Archangel's call, implying more than one archangel and not that Jesus is one of the archangels.

1 THESS:16because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

That scripture is not trying to insinuate whether there are more than one, so much as stressing the point that Jesus for whatever reason decides to use God's trumpet, but have a voice like an archangel. Makes no sense. Why would God use his trumpet, but have a voice of an inferior being?

You seem to be avery knowledgeable individual of the word though. So lemme throw this at you. Who in the bible fits this description? (Hint, only one person fits this description)

Rev. 10:1 And I saw another strong angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as the sun, and his feet were as fiery pillars, 2 and he had in his hand a little scroll opened. And he set his right foot upon the sea, but his left one upon the earth, 3 and he cried out with a loud voice just as when a lion roars. And when he cried out, the seven thunders uttered their own voices.

Interested in seeing your response to this.

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

Also, the scripture indicates that angels came to worship Jesus.

DoesthefactthatworshipisgiventoJesusprovethatheisGod?

At Hebrews 1:6, the angels are instructed to "worship" Jesus, according to the rendering of RS,TEV,KJ,JB, and NAB.NW says "do obeisance to." At Matthew 14:33, Jesus’ disciples are said to have "worshiped" him, according to RS,TEV,KJ; other translations say that they "showed him reverence" (NAB), "bowed down before him" (JB), "fell at his feet" (NE), "did obeisance to him" (NW).

The Greek word rendered "worship" is pro·sky·ne´o, which AGreek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestamentandOtherEarlyChristianLiterature says was also "used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground." (Chicago, 1979, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker; second English edition; p. 716) This is the term used at Matthew 14:33 to express what the disciples did toward Jesus; at Hebrews 1:6 to indicate what the angels are to do toward Jesus; at Genesis 22:5 in the Greek Septuagint to describe what Abraham did toward Jehovah and at Genesis 23:7 to describe what Abraham did, in harmony with the custom of the time, toward people with whom he was doing business; at 1 Kings 1:23 in the Septuagint to describe the prophet Nathan’s action on approaching King David.

At Matthew 4:10 (RS), Jesus said: "You shall worship [from pro·sky·ne´o] the Lord your God and him only shall you serve." (At Deuteronomy 6:13, which Jesus is evidently here quoting, appears the personal name of God, the Tetragrammaton.) In harmony with that, we must understand that it is pro·sky·ne´o with a particular attitude of heart and mind that should be directed only toward God.

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

In the bible, Jesus also says that he, as the word was with God, and that the word was God.

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.

John1:1,2:RS reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (KJ,Dy,JB,NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God."

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: "No one has ever seen God." Verse 14 clearly says that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory." Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was "with God." Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as "the only true God"; so, Jesus as "a god" merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.

Is the rendering "a god" consistent with the rules of Greek grammar?

Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, "The Word was God." But not all agree. In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos." He suggests: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’" (JournalofBiblicalLiterature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·os´ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, "The Word was God," do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as "a devil," and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as "a prophet."

John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his DictionaryoftheBible, says: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’"—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

In harmony with the above, AT reads: "the Word was divine"; Mo, "the Logos was divine"; NTIV, "the word was a god." In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: "God of a sort the Word was." Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as "a god" is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as "gods" (Hebrew, ’elo·him´; Greek, the·oi´, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

Jesus also says that he and God are ONE.

Refer to my last reply to LJ4ptplay for this answer.

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

He says that he is the savior, and God says that he is the savior. He says he will judge, the he is the lord, and so does God.

You omit much of the scripture to come to your own conclusion. Read the bible for yourself, try an American Standard version, which is an accurate bible translation.[/quote]TextsinwhichatitlethatbelongstoJehovahisappliedtoJesusChristorisclaimedtoapplytoJesusSavior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: "Besides me there is no savior." Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of "God our Savior," and then of both "God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior." So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: "God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Italics added.) (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi´a‛, rendered "savior" or "deliverer") that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

I used to own a NWT bible, printed by your church, it alters the scripture to say that Jesus is a god, when it really says Jesus is God. Your bible also changes the word worship to obeisance. As for you comparing Satan to Jesus, that's another example of your warped view. There's no comparison within the context that this is used.

God: At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called "Mighty God" at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No!None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as "mighty God," just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called "God Almighty."—Gen. 17:1.

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called "king of kings" (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called "the light of the world." (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

As for your bold and capitalization of the illegitimacy of other Christian groups, that doesn't make it true. I simply said that, if we listened to your logic, which we don't, it would be. You also proved, by highlighting this, that you don't respect other Christian groups and, once again, are an egotist.

Jesus preached a seperation from true religion, vs false religion on the sermon on the mount. Read mathew 7 and you will see this clearly. Now if Jesus who all Christian faiths claim to follow says there is only one right way, how is are his true followers egoists for following the leader of the faith himself?

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

Why don't you answer everything I said? Why don't you explain your group's failure to do anything important for anyone? Why don't you explain your group's role in a young mother bleeding to death? You're a part of that, by the way. You want to be special, different and better, but you're not. You, and your group can believe whatever you like, and it still will not be what you wish. Truth is not a matter of personal will, it's a matter of fact and reality, irrespective of whatever you believe or are told to believe.

Trying too. Hard though when you are not willing to at least be civil and reasonable. You fail to realize, JW's are not doing their own personal will, we're doing Jehovah's. And last I checked, it benefits people to listen to what God says is right. If more people did, the world would be a much better place. And that is as you say it, fact and reality.

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

You, and your organization are self-righteous and cannot be an instrument of God, because you lack humility and the meekness that Jesus demonstrated. You simply reinforce each other, make each other believe in one another's accuracy and strength: the blind leading the blind, patting one another on the back. Jesus said that he would reveal the truth, not an organization.

Explain why the very same God, and faith Jesus followed is the one JW's do? Jesus made his Father's name known, Lived in his Father's laws, preached the Kingdom message. Name another Christian group that does that? Most don't even have the Father's name but a handful of times in their bibles. So how can they make his name known? Most Christian faiths find ways around just simply doing what God says we should do from a morality standpoint. Who is that pleasing, God or themselves? Isaiah 2:2-4 does actually indicate Jehovah seperating true worship from false in the last days. Lemme know what you think about those verses.

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

Bottom line is that truth goes way beyond your book, which is written to the benefit of the culture it comes from: the Jews.

Ok.

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

People all over the world had their own Gods, own traditions, own saviors and own beliefs. They have as much evidence as you do, when they talk about Allah, the Great Spirit, Gya, Mother Earth, the World mind, or anything else.

How come none of their books and beliefs have provided prophetic word that secular history can account for?

Originally Posted by OGKnickfan

Literally, people like you are destroying the world, and have been for a long time. You won't listen to the truth, you won't search, you don't see the need. This is why the world is doomed and has already ended.

Last thing in the world anyone is worried about as a detriment to society is a PRACTICING (Important to note that)JW's. Really think about what you are saying.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? GOD only has the wisdom we attribute to him. PERIOD. If GOD was truly all knowing, divine, intelligent, and all that other bull**** we HUMANS attribute to GOD being in the first place.

Prophecy would be very detailed, very specific. There would be no errors in translation. Everyone at the same time would have received his eternal knowledge. Instead this has NEVER happened. What has happened is people of one region...have spread their thoughts on what GOD should be to people in other regions the bible has never mentioned.

Why? Because the bible was written by primitive human beings at the time. It's the very sane reason as to why people in other parts of the planet such as South American, Mexico, Aussie land, China, Japan, East Timor, are all excluded from the bible mentioning them..because the humans who sat down and wrote this dribble had no knowledge of other people being on other continents.

The entire concept of "chosen people" comes from the notion of you believing first you are the only one of your kind to be on the face of the earth. If you know for a fact there are many different races of other people on the planet...you cannot come to the conclusion you are GOD's chosen people.

If you believe somewhere out there...there is an non-flawed, perfect copy of the original bible that the council of Nicea has laying around somewhere in the former empire of Constantine..how can you possibly follow a flawed, mistranslated, incorrect version as GOD's word and then claim your copy to be correct??

That makes no ****ing sense. Because if you believe your copy is NOT flawed, the translations are correct. Then you believe your version of the bible to be correct. So if say in 100 years an copy of the original is ever found. You cannot then claim it. And you have to stick to your copy of the bible flaws and all.

The only reason people follow religion is because they are too intellectually inferior to handle any other concept ...I am speaking of the vast vast majority of fundamentalists. Which you are. Sadly, fundamentalism seems to be the religious flavor over the past 40 years. Even your own moderates within many different faiths are having a difficult time.

Simply put...

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is incompetent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus

Epicurus drew the conclusion that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of the gods, who care about the matters of mankind, assuming absolute concepts of benevolence, knowledge, and power. More generally, no paradox or problem exists for those who do not accept the premises, in particular the existence of a benevolent god or gods.

Why does God, who is all powerful and has foreknowledge of the future, allow evil?" Marcion's answer is that god is in part evil himself!

Who I am?

Someone on here one asked me "why" I am the way I am. Not counting my life experiences, my personality is completely a separate entity.

Hope this is a bit of a good explanation.

To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness", of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age.

When it comes to their own areas of expertise -- and INTJs can have several -- they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know.

INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake.

INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project. Anyone considered to be "slacking," including superiors, will lose their respect -- and will generally be made aware of this; INTJs have also been known to take it upon themselves to implement critical decisions without consulting their supervisors or co-workers. On the other hand, they do tend to be scrupulous and even-handed about recognizing the individual contributions that have gone into a project, and have a gift for seizing opportunities which others might not even notice.

In the broadest terms, what INTJs "do" tends to be what they "know". Typical INTJ career choices are in the sciences and engineering, but they can be found wherever a combination of intellect and incisiveness are required (e.g., law, some areas of academia). INTJs can rise to management positions when they are willing to invest time in marketing their abilities as well as enhancing them, and (whether for the sake of ambition or the desire for privacy) many also find it useful to learn to simulate some degree of surface conformism in order to mask their inherent unconventionality.

Personal relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ's Achilles heel. While they are capable of caring deeply for others (usually a select few), and are willing to spend a great deal of time and effort on a relationship, the knowledge and self-confidence that make them so successful in other areas can suddenly abandon or mislead them in interpersonal situations.

This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals; for instance, they tend to have little patience and less understanding of such things as small talk and flirtation (which most types consider half the fun of a relationship). To complicate matters, INTJs are usually extremely private people, and can often be naturally impassive as well, which makes them easy to misread and misunderstand. Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense. :-) This sometimes results in a peculiar naivete', paralleling that of many Fs -- only instead of expecting inexhaustible affection and empathy from a romantic relationship, the INTJ will expect inexhaustible reasonability and directness.

Probably the strongest INTJ assets in the interpersonal area are their intuitive abilities and their willingness to "work at" a relationship. Although as Ts they do not always have the kind of natural empathy that many Fs do, the Intuitive function can often act as a good substitute by synthesizing the probable meanings behind such things as tone of voice, turn of phrase, and facial expression. This ability can then be honed and directed by consistent, repeated efforts to understand and support those they care about, and those relationships which ultimately do become established with an INTJ tend to be characterized by their robustness, stability, and good communications.

Functional Analysis
by Joe Butt

Introverted iNtuition

INTJs are idea people. Anything is possible; everything is negotiable. Whatever the outer circumstances, INTJs are ever perceiving inner pattern-forms and using real-world materials to operationalize them. Others may see what is and wonder why; INTJs see what might be and say "Why not?!" Paradoxes, antinomies, and other contradictory phenomena aptly express these intuitors' amusement at those whom they feel may be taking a particular view of reality too seriously. INTJs enjoy developing unique solutions to complex problems.

Extraverted Thinking

Thinking in this auxiliary role is a workhorse. Closure is the payoff for efforts expended. Evaluation begs diagnosis; product drives process. As they come to light, Thinking tends, protects, affirms and directs iNtuition's offspring, fully equipping them for fulfilling and useful lives. A faithful pedagogue, Thinking argues not so much on its own behalf, but in defense of its charges. And through this process these impressionable ideas take on the likeness of their master.

Introverted Feeling

Feeling has a modest inner room, two doors down from the Most Imminent iNtuition. It doesn't get out much, but lends its influence on behalf of causes which are Good and Worthy and Humane. We may catch a glimpse of it in the unspoken attitude of good will, or the gracious smile or nod. Some question the existence of Feeling in this type, yet its unseen balance to Thinking is a cardinal dimension in the full measure of the INTJ's soul.
Extraverted Sensing

Sensing serves with a good will, or not at all. As other inferior functions, it has only a rudimentary awareness of context, amount or degree. Thus INTJs sweat the details or, at times, omit them. "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts" could well have been said by an INTJ on a mission. Sensing's extraverted attitude is evident in this type's bent to savor sensations rather than to merely categorize them. Indiscretions of indulgence are likely an expression of the unconscious vengeance of the inferior.
Famous INTJs:

All Rationals are good at planning operations, but Masterminds are head and shoulders above all the rest in contingency planning. Complex operations involve many steps or stages, one following another in a necessary progression, and Masterminds are naturally able to grasp how each one leads to the next, and to prepare alternatives for difficulties that are likely to arise any step of the way. Trying to anticipate every contingency, Masterminds never set off on their current project without a Plan A firmly in mind, but they are always prepared to switch to Plan B or C or D if need be.

Masterminds are rare, comprising no more than, say, one percent of the population, and they are rarely encountered outside their office, factory, school, or laboratory. Although they are highly capable leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once they take charge, however, they are thoroughgoing pragmatists.

Masterminds are certain that efficiency is indispensable in a well-run organization, and if they encounter inefficiency-any waste of human and material resources-they are quick to realign operations and reassign personnel. Masterminds do not feel bound by established rules and procedures, and traditional authority does not impress them, nor do slogans or catchwords. Only ideas that make sense to them are adopted; those that don't, aren't, no matter who thought of them. Remember, their aim is always maximum efficiency.

In their careers, Masterminds usually rise to positions of responsibility, for they work long and hard and are dedicated in their pursuit of goals, sparing neither their own time and effort nor that of their colleagues and employees. Problem-solving is highly stimulating to Masterminds, who love responding to tangled systems that require careful sorting out. Ordinarily, they verbalize the positive and avoid comments of a negative nature; they are more interested in moving an organization forward than dwelling on mistakes of the past.

Masterminds tend to be much more definite and self-confident than other Rationals, having usually developed a very strong will. Decisions come easily to them; in fact, they can hardly rest until they have things settled and decided. But before they decide anything, they must do the research. Masterminds are highly theoretical, but they insist on looking at all available data before they embrace an idea, and they are suspicious of any statement that is based on shoddy research, or that is not checked against reality.

I did the personality test: very interesting, though I'm taking it with a grain of salt. The questions were very good and seemed very objective. I was labeled a INFJ: Intuitive Introvertive Judging Feeling. They put me down with Gandhi and Jane Goodall.

I think that the problem with the fundamentalist is that they know nothing, except their rules, all with a selfish end as their goal. The result is that, even though, they act towards others, at times, in charity or kindness, their actions are false and come from their own selfish fears and desires.

A lady once explained to me that she liked her time in Egypt because of how gentlemanly the men were towards women. I explained how their actions were worthless, because they were simply following their Koran, in not harassing her. It's not about people, it's about the ideas. This is why Castro, for example, failed to revolutionize his country: he cared more about his ideas than he did about people.

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light which enlightens everyone was coming into the world."

-the New World Translation adds the word "a" and removes capitalization from the word God, within this line. Your copy is the only one I can find that contains this difference. I have a NWT, from a JW friend who gave me one, and I see this in your copy. I guess the bible doesn't agree with Mr. Russell, so your organization ust changed it.

-In addition, when it says that the word was with God, it simply means that Jesus is part of God's nature. In Isiah, and I'm not going to go poring through the bible to find the exact chapter and verse, it speaks of the coming of Jesus, or a messiah, and clearly describes this person as being one with God, part of God's makeup.

-The above passage also says that, without Jesus, nothing would have come to exist, that he created life. If you read genesis, it says God created life.

-In other passages, Jesus is called "our lord," the same title used for God, throughout the bible. Jesus also resurrects the dead, something attributed to God in other parts of the bible.

More Scripture for you:

Revelation 4: it says that the "Lord God" had come and has returned.

-Other parts of the bible call Jesus the first and the last, while calling God the alpha and the omega.

-I don't care about trinity, because I don't believe any of this, but the JWs have to make a big stretch to uphold Michael as Jesus, when it doesn't say that Michael is Jesus in the bible.

-In 1903, Charles Taze Russell was sued for selling miracle wheat @ $1.00 a pound(a very high price, at the time).

-In 1913, Russell admitted that he only went to school for 7 years, and he had below an 8th grade education.

-Charles Taze Russell predicted that the Jesus would come to Earth, and that the world would end, in 1914.

-In 1912, Charles Taze Russell said that the end of the world would come, in October of 1914, or October of 1915.

-When none of the predictions came true, the Watch Tower Society said that 1914 was the year where Jesus invisibly began ruling his throne in heaven. They also claimed that 1914 marked the beginning of the last days.

-Jehovah's Witnesses also claimed that by the end of the generation of 1914, the world would end.

- In 1918, the Watch Tower Society predicted that all other Churches and Christian denominations would be destroyed by God. The prediction did not come true.

-J.E. Rutherford(2nd President of the Jehovah's Witnesses) predicted Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and several Israelites would be resurrected from the dead in 1925. The prediction did not come true.

- In 1932, the Watch Tower Society predicted that "christendom would be overthrown." This was their second failed prediction that all other denominations would get wiped out.

- In 1941, the WatchTower said that Armageddon was months away. 67 years have passed, and the world is still continuing.

- In 1975, the Watch Tower Society predicted the end of the world.
In an attempt to gain more members, the WTS claimed that all non-Jehovah's Witnesses would not be saved. This led to an increase in the amount of members. Many JW's gave up their cars, houses, and cashed in their insurance.

- When the 1975 prediction of Armageddon did not come true, the WTS tried to blame it on its members. They said that the members had misinterpretted what the WatchTower was saying, and 30,000 members would be disfellowshipped, in 1978.

- In 1980, members of the writing committe were also disfellowshipped.

-In 1994, many members predicted the end of the world, based on Charles Taze Russell's changed prediction, that in a generations time, the world would end. This prediction also did not come true. 1994 is one of the most secret predictions of the end of the world, because only some of its members made this prediction. Since it wasn't in the WatchTower, it was very easy for the WTS to cover this prediction up.

-In 1903, Charles Taze Russell was sued for selling miracle wheat @ $1.00 a pound(a very high price, at the time).

-In 1913, Russell admitted that he only went to school for 7 years, and he had below an 8th grade education.

-Charles Taze Russell predicted that the Jesus would come to Earth, and that the world would end, in 1914.

-In 1912, Charles Taze Russell said that the end of the world would come, in October of 1914, or October of 1915.

-When none of the predictions came true, the Watch Tower Society said that 1914 was the year where Jesus invisibly began ruling his throne in heaven. They also claimed that 1914 marked the beginning of the last days.

-Jehovah's Witnesses also claimed that by the end of the generation of 1914, the world would end.

- In 1918, the Watch Tower Society predicted that all other Churches and Christian denominations would be destroyed by God. The prediction did not come true.

-J.E. Rutherford(2nd President of the Jehovah's Witnesses) predicted Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and several Israelites would be resurrected from the dead in 1925. The prediction did not come true.

- In 1932, the Watch Tower Society predicted that "christendom would be overthrown." This was their second failed prediction that all other denominations would get wiped out.

- In 1941, the WatchTower said that Armageddon was months away. 67 years have passed, and the world is still continuing.

- In 1975, the Watch Tower Society predicted the end of the world.
In an attempt to gain more members, the WTS claimed that all non-Jehovah's Witnesses would not be saved. This led to an increase in the amount of members. Many JW's gave up their cars, houses, and cashed in their insurance.

- When the 1975 prediction of Armageddon did not come true, the WTS tried to blame it on its members. They said that the members had misinterpretted what the WatchTower was saying, and 30,000 members would be disfellowshipped, in 1978.

- In 1980, members of the writing committe were also disfellowshipped.

-In 1994, many members predicted the end of the world, based on Charles Taze Russell's changed prediction, that in a generations time, the world would end. This prediction also did not come true. 1994 is one of the most secret predictions of the end of the world, because only some of its members made this prediction. Since it wasn't in the WatchTower, it was very easy for the WTS to cover this prediction up.

I think I've done that post before in here. But the point remains the same..